Paul Revere and the World He Lived in by Esther Forbes

[northbridgewater]

This is one from my grandmother's collection. It gives an excellent perspective of life in Boston before, during, and after the Revolution(Revere's lifetime, of course). I read it many years ago,and then, a few years ago, I read Hackett-Fischer's book and his comments on pgs. 338/9. I had to wonder if he was referring to the same book! So I read Forbes' book again. Lo and behold, there were whole lines in there that sounded very familiar! And I can find precious little evidence to support the idea that    aging spinsters are "improbable pairings" in writing a history of "a masculine figure". Paul Revere and the World He Lived in is a valuable read IMHO.                                Please don't mis-understand   I thoroughly enjoy Fischer's PR's Ride- primary source stuff for the 3 strikes. Forbes' book lends perspective. Every writer has bias. I think Forbes' shows less (or maybe it's closer to mine).

[CortJestir]

Thanks for the heads up.  I'll pick up a copy...

Have you checked out the (well-annotated and long!) bibliography in Fischer? Maybe he uses Paul Revere and the World... as a reference?

CJ

[northbridgewater]

Yes. And he did. It just seems to me that, taken as a whole, he disparages Forbes' work a bit. And maybe rightly on certain historic specifics such as; did Revere return to Boston after 4/19? (Apparently not for some time.) But to suggest she was the "architect" of a remake of Revere's image in light of WW2 seems absurd when one notes that her letter of acknowledgments is dated 3 months before Pearl Harbor. Fischer is a fine author (Washington's Crossing is another corker), but one should always be on the lookout for bias. Note  Fischer's assertion that Revere was committed to "collective rights and individual responsibilities" while modern Americans call for individual rights and collective responsibilities() and compare that to Forbes' choice of words in chapter IV, part X, second page (page 140 in my edition).  I don't mean to nitpick. These are wonderful histories. I'm just warning against taking all the details as the final word on a particular subject.

[gunville]

I stumbled on this book at a Library book sale a few months ago and picked it up (fill a paper bag of books for $5) - it had been taken out of Library circulation (I mean, after all, who needs history books in Libraries, right? Maybe it made room for a couple of Yoga DVD's... or an Obama worship biography )

Over Christmas week I've had a chance to finally read it - I have to say it's an excellent book.  It gives you better insight than Fischer in understanding not just Revere, but the whole unfolding of the war, Boston, and many other characters.  (Fischer is still better coverage of April 19, but Forbes offers additional information and insight. It makes up for some of the weakness of Fischer in both analysis and perspective.)

I come away from reading this book thinking that Revere is a great man; "The Ride" is among the minor of his accomplishments.

Written in 1941 the style for a biography is a bit different than we find these days. The prose is more challenging than contemporary books but neither archaic nor insurmountable. Current biography (including Fischer) suffers from contemporary historic perspectives of academia - detracting from the actors and emphasizing "social forces"; Forbes gives us a much more balanced perspective of the two.  This makes it refreshing.